Lack of asylum cooperation with Germany could make the Calais border much worse
Jonathan Lindsell, 25 August 2015
The number of asylum seekers attempting to enter Britain from Calais isn’t a problem caused by UK membership of the EU. If all 28 members were unconnected but economically similar, or joined by a looser EFTA arrangement, Europe would still be seen as safe and attractive to those fleeing conflict.
This means that, after Brexit, many migrants would still be trying to enter Europe and many would reach Calais. Even with positive UK-French relations, the Calais authorities are unlikely to be more effective than they are now – but in an acrimonious Brexit, Pavel Swidlicki argues France could be less cooperative.
Chancellor Angela Merkel had been under sustained pressure from Pegida to address the asylum influx in Germany even before it was reported that 800,000 more people were expected this year. Her government increased its calls for EU cooperation, threatening to suspend the Schengen border-free system if other EU member states will not accept an apportioned number of asylum applicants.
If Schengen is suspended, Germany will be replicating the UK approach so reject most asylum seekers at its borders as under the Dublin Regulation newcomers must claim asylum in the first EU country they enter. (Confusingly, Germany has waived its Dublin rights with regard to Syrian refugees, so is processing Syrian claimants it could legally deport.)
British failure to work with Germany and the EU on asylum could mean vastly more non-Syrians at Calais: Germany’s threat would mean proportionally more asylum seekers see the UK as an attractive and accessible safe haven. Having already traversed half of Europe to the Czech-, Austrian- or Polish-German borders, many will continue to Calais rather than wait in those less appealing countries for their asylum applications to be processed. We know of this displacement effect from Spain, which reinforced razorwire fences and watchtowers around its African enclaves, Melilla and Ceuta, in 2005: this diverted attempts to enter Spain and greatly increased sea crossings to Italy and Greece.
The movement of asylum seekers into Europe is unlikely to wane. There is unrest in Turkey after Ahmet Davutoglu failed to form a government, meaning new elections in November set against renewed fighting between the state and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Turkey has just announced greater cooperation with America in driving ISIS out of northern Syria, which will bring Turkish forces nearer the Kurd-controlled Rojava district. There is potential for further violence and displacement (despite the pro-Kurdish advances in the June elections) which would add to the number of regions from which asylum seekers are fleeing. Elsewhere, Macedonian police have abandoned trying to control their border with Greece, allowing those in Greece to make for Western Europe.
It may be politically difficult, but if the government wants to reduced irregular entry attempts at Calais, its best bet is to join Germany in pressing the EU to agree on collective asylum processing. An ordered system evaluating refugee status should quell the current hysteria over Calais and reassure Germany that it isn’t bearing the influx alone.
Jonathan Lindsell is EU research fellow at Civitas. His study on the lessons of Switzerland’s global trading position will be released shortly.
“While immigration from EEA and non EEA states might become a single statistics, I highly doubt politicians and the ONS would conflate migration with asylum and refugee entrants. ”
You are trapped in the mindset which says the liberal internationalist fantasy will continue for ever.It won’t and all the signs are we are reaching the tipping point with immigration into the EU. Governments are beginning to get desperate and politicians will act in the harshest manner when they get scared. Pulling the rug from under the asylum system will be one of the first things they do. Shutting down the Chunnel would hurt France far more than the UK and consequently is a strong bargaining chip.
The French are not doing Britain a favour. In fact they are not carrying out their legal obligations to either return the immigrants to their first safe country (as the Dublin Agreement requires) or to register them in France.
Setting up immigration between the RoI and Ulster just requires political will. You also need to understand that the Republic of Ireland would be one of the UK’s prime bargaining chips after Brexit if the EU tries to be tricky. In those circumstances Britain simply closes the border with the North, stops free movement from the ROI and imposes retaliatory sanctions on RoI exports to the UK if the EU starts placing tariffs and the like on UK exports to the EU. As the RoI is utterly dependent on the UK market, the EU would have to choose between a ruined member state (RoI) or push huge amounts of money its way.
You need to get yourself out of the mentality that the status quo is forever.
Leaving the EU would mean that our political class would no longer have an excuse not to control immigration. That would be a tremendous plus.
At present our politicians can obfuscate the immigration situation by emphasising the EU role in immigration while immigrants from outside the EU (which can be excluded by Britain) are effectively ignored. .
Net Migration to the UK in the year ending December 2014 from the EU was 178,000 and from outside the EU 197,000. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/latest-immigration-statistics
Without the EU situation to obfuscate the matter our politicians would have to tackle the entirety of our immigration because it would become a single statistic. They would have no legal excuse for not halting mass immigration wherever it came from.
As to the practicalities of stopping the illegal immigration from the EU after Brexit, the UK has the great advantage of being an island. Moreover, if the French play up the Channel Tunnel (which is majority owned by the French and the main avenue for illegals) could be closed.
Brexit would also give the UK a good reason to stop free movement from the Republic of Ireland and Britain, a ready channel for illegal immigrants to England.
While immigration from EEA and non EEA states might become a single statistics, I highly doubt politicians and the ONS would conflate migration with asylum and refugee entrants.
Even more strongly I doubt that any UK government would unilaterally close the Channel Tunnel. The economic implications would be vast. What do you mean by ‘if the French play up’? They are already cooperating to a large extent by allowing us to effectively operate our external border at Calais, on French soil.
Stopping free movement between Ireland and Britain is a different issue and one I presume would be extremely toxic. The open border to the North and the absence of either state’s military and police at the border is a key symbolic and practical result of the peace process. I cannot see a government already busy with the practicalities of Brexit also trying to erect a border around Ulster.